Los Angeles Lakers need to make it official with Byron Scott

In this file photo, Cleveland Cavaliers head coach Byron Scott watches during the second quarter of of an NBA basketball game against the Brooklyn Nets, Wednesday, April 3, 2013, in Cleveland. The Nets won 113-95. (AP Photo/Tony Dejak)

And if I’m Byron Scott, the next time the Lakers call to ask me to come in and talk about the roster, I’m only agreeing if they offer me the job.

No more freebies, as Scott gave them Wednesday.

His time is too valuable to be an unpaid consultant.

If you want to treat him like your coach, pay him like your coach.

But more on that in a bit.

For weeks now, the general sentiment was the Lakers were more than aware and comfortable with the available candidates, but they wanted to wait until after the draft and first phase of free agency before circling back to naming a coach.

It was sort of a nice way of saying, “We don’t really have a team in place, as in actual players, so before we walk down the aisle with someone it’s probably in all of our interests that we get a roster in order so we all know what we’re getting into.”

It was a fair and prudent approach, and it also meant a key card the Lakers could play in pursuit of an impact free agent. It’s not like the Lakers told LeBron James or Carmelo Anthony they could actually handpick the next coach, but they were all ears in case either had someone in particular they wanted — or didn’t want — as the coach.

Not that it did much good.

James returned to Cleveland and Anthony is staying in New York.

Oh well, it was worth a try, right?

A week later, though, still no coach.

Meanwhile, the draft is long gone and the Lakers have added Carlos Boozer and Julius Randle and Jeremy Lin and Jordan Clarkson and Ed Davis while retaining Nick Young and Jordan Hill.

Yet we still don’t know who will coach them.

In fact, the only development is Scott, the perceived front-runner, met Wednesday with Lakers officials for the third time.

The interview came and went — and by all accounts it was less an interview and more Lakers brass and Scott scouring over the remade roster.

In other words, the Lakers were picking Scott’s brain as a company would a high-priced consultant.

Only without the hefty fee.

And no official offer.

Like I said, this is starting to get weird.

And a little disappointing considering the Lakers have a well-respected, well-connected, well-vetted candidate in Scott ready and willing to step in on the ground floor of a major rebuilding project.

Advertisement

In fact at this point, I’m not really sure who is doing whom the bigger favor.

On one hand, the Lakers are Scott’s dream job. He grew up just a few blocks from the Fabulous Forum, played high school ball at nearby Morningside and was a longtime star during the Showtime Era.

Returning to coach the Lakers would complete a lifelong goal.

On the other hand, it’s not like he’d be taking over a team even remotely close to competing for championships.

This is not a great job if your aspiration is to win right now. In fact, there is a greater chance of a formidable amount of losing than winning.

Scott might be taking an even bigger risk accepting the job than the Lakers are giving it to him.

He understands the roster concerns, knows there will be rough times and is aware of the danger of taking a job others don’t want.

But he wants this job badly.

Yet the Lakers still hesitate to pull the trigger.

And that is a bit disconcerting since all signs point to Scott as the strongest candidate.

Why they don’t see that and make it official is troublesome.

Scott has the family ties, having played 11 years with the Lakers. He has the respect of Kobe Bryant, whom he mentored early in Bryant’s career, stays in contact with to this day and received a strong endorsement from last week when Bryant said he would welcome a chance to play for his former teammate.

And he’s got the all-important backing of the fans, a key missing element for predecessors Mike Brown and Mike D’Antoni, neither of whom had any real support from Lakers faithful and both of whom were abandoned by fans when things turned bad.

Scott would get the necessary time to see this through, an important factor Lakers officials overlooked with the hirings of Brown and D’Antoni.

Scott isn’t just Lakers family, he’s also a strong candidate after taking the New Jersey Nets to back-to-back NBA Finals and guiding the New Orleans Hornets to the best record in the Western Conference in 2008.

Even his failures are explainable.

The downfall in New Orleans was due to ownership issues that eroded the roster. And nobody was winning anything with the roster Scott had with the Cleveland Cavaliers after James left for Miami.

His triumphs far outweigh the defeats, and the good grace he has with fans will buy him time others might not be afforded during the difficult days ahead.

The Lakers have to understand this, and between their longtime familiarity with Scott and the three interviews, you have to believe he’s been thoroughly vetted.

Yet they still haven’t made it official.

What, then, is the hold up?

It could be the Lakers simply wanted to catch their breaths after the draft and free agency before deciding on a coach.

They probably have a few more roster moves they are contemplating, and that might be diverting their attention.

Maybe they are simply saving some money by waiting to officially bring Scott on. And meanwhile, doing just enough to show the fans they are doing their due diligence.

Like bringing him in for an interview that seemed a heck of a lot more like a meeting you’d have with your actual coach — except for the whole paycheck thing.

That would be very un-Lakers-like, of course.

But then, these are very un-Lakers-like times.

You know what would be very Lakers-like?

Do the right thing and hire the coach with the impressive resume, the respect of your best player and the goodwill of a frustrated fan base.